XP 3500 socket 939 high cpu temps?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

I just completed upgrading to an Athlon 3500 90nm winchester core, with an
MSI Neo2 Platinum mb this past weekend.

I got the oem processor, along with a Thermalrite XP90 heatsink, with a 80mm
( i think) fan.
I used Arctic Silver 3.

My cpu temp as reported by corecenter, and in the bios, idles around 46-48C,
and gets into low 50's under load. System temp is 25C.
This is the first time in my many system upgrades that I have had a heat
problem. My Athlon XP 2800+, overclocked to 3200+, idled around 36c and
only got to app 42c under load. I have also noticed even at idle, the temp
can vary 3-5 degrees C very quickly, which I find unusual.

I am concerned about these temps. I am not overclocking the system yet,
running all at stock ( 11x200). My case cooling is good, I have it in a
Lian Li pc-75 full tower case, which came equipped with 2 cooling fans in
front, and two in back. At this time, I do not have Cool N Quite enabled.
My cpu fan is turning at 3800 rpm.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks,


--
Don Burnette

"When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the way
of the man that's doing it."
39 answers Last reply
More about 3500 socket high temps
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    Don Burnette wrote:
    > I just completed upgrading to an Athlon 3500 90nm winchester core,
    with an
    > MSI Neo2 Platinum mb this past weekend.
    >
    > I got the oem processor, along with a Thermalrite XP90 heatsink, with
    a 80mm
    > ( i think) fan.
    > I used Arctic Silver 3.
    >
    > My cpu temp as reported by corecenter, and in the bios, idles around
    46-48C,
    > and gets into low 50's under load. System temp is 25C.
    > This is the first time in my many system upgrades that I have had a
    heat
    > problem. My Athlon XP 2800+, overclocked to 3200+, idled around 36c
    and
    > only got to app 42c under load. I have also noticed even at idle, the
    temp
    > can vary 3-5 degrees C very quickly, which I find unusual.
    >
    > I am concerned about these temps. I am not overclocking the system
    yet,
    > running all at stock ( 11x200). My case cooling is good, I have it
    in a
    > Lian Li pc-75 full tower case, which came equipped with 2 cooling
    fans in
    > front, and two in back. At this time, I do not have Cool N Quite
    enabled.
    > My cpu fan is turning at 3800 rpm.
    >
    > Any suggestions would be appreciated.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    >
    > --
    > Don Burnette
    >
    > "When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of
    the way
    > of the man that's doing it."

    Core Center except for the latest version is not accurate. The lastest
    version on the MSI website also will read high CPU temps but will give
    a better reading after a warm reboot. If your system temp is 25 I would
    suspect that your load CPU temp is in the high 30's or lower 40's. At
    this time my temps are 35-39 with stock cooling with both Core Center
    and MBM.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    s_roger@comcast.net wrote:
    > Don Burnette wrote:
    >> I just completed upgrading to an Athlon 3500 90nm winchester core,
    >> with an MSI Neo2 Platinum mb this past weekend.
    >>
    >> I got the oem processor, along with a Thermalrite XP90 heatsink,
    >> with a 80mm ( i think) fan.
    >> I used Arctic Silver 3.
    >>
    >> My cpu temp as reported by corecenter, and in the bios, idles around
    >> 46-48C, and gets into low 50's under load. System temp is 25C.
    >> This is the first time in my many system upgrades that I have had a
    >> heat problem. My Athlon XP 2800+, overclocked to 3200+, idled
    >> around 36c and only got to app 42c under load. I have also noticed
    >> even at idle, the temp can vary 3-5 degrees C very quickly, which I
    >> find unusual.
    >>
    >> I am concerned about these temps. I am not overclocking the system
    >> yet, running all at stock ( 11x200). My case cooling is good, I
    >> have it in a Lian Li pc-75 full tower case, which came equipped with
    >> 2 cooling fans in front, and two in back. At this time, I do not
    >> have Cool N Quite enabled. My cpu fan is turning at 3800 rpm.
    >>
    >> Any suggestions would be appreciated.
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Don Burnette
    >>
    >> "When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of
    >> the way of the man that's doing it."
    >
    > Core Center except for the latest version is not accurate. The lastest
    > version on the MSI website also will read high CPU temps but will give
    > a better reading after a warm reboot. If your system temp is 25 I
    > would suspect that your load CPU temp is in the high 30's or lower
    > 40's. At this time my temps are 35-39 with stock cooling with both
    > Core Center and MBM.

    Thanks, I will try out the latest version. I booted up just now after
    getting home, and it immediately showed 45C - I know that can't be right
    from a cold boot up.

    I tried installing MBM yesterday and kept getting an error message, I
    figured maybe it did not work with this mb, will try again as I prefer it.

    Thanks,


    --
    Don Burnette

    "When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
    way of the man that's doing it."
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    s_roger@comcast.net wrote:
    > Don Burnette wrote:
    >> I just completed upgrading to an Athlon 3500 90nm winchester core,
    >> with an MSI Neo2 Platinum mb this past weekend.
    >>
    >> I got the oem processor, along with a Thermalrite XP90 heatsink,
    >> with a 80mm ( i think) fan.
    >> I used Arctic Silver 3.
    >>
    >> My cpu temp as reported by corecenter, and in the bios, idles around
    >> 46-48C, and gets into low 50's under load. System temp is 25C.
    >> This is the first time in my many system upgrades that I have had a
    >> heat problem. My Athlon XP 2800+, overclocked to 3200+, idled
    >> around 36c and only got to app 42c under load. I have also noticed
    >> even at idle, the temp can vary 3-5 degrees C very quickly, which I
    >> find unusual.
    >>
    >> I am concerned about these temps. I am not overclocking the system
    >> yet, running all at stock ( 11x200). My case cooling is good, I
    >> have it in a Lian Li pc-75 full tower case, which came equipped with
    >> 2 cooling fans in front, and two in back. At this time, I do not
    >> have Cool N Quite enabled. My cpu fan is turning at 3800 rpm.
    >>
    >> Any suggestions would be appreciated.
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Don Burnette
    >>
    >> "When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of
    >> the way of the man that's doing it."
    >
    > Core Center except for the latest version is not accurate. The lastest
    > version on the MSI website also will read high CPU temps but will give
    > a better reading after a warm reboot. If your system temp is 25 I
    > would suspect that your load CPU temp is in the high 30's or lower
    > 40's. At this time my temps are 35-39 with stock cooling with both
    > Core Center and MBM.


    You were dead on!
    Just installed the latest version of core center, and my temp dropped
    immediately by about 8c, I also successfully installed MBM and it is
    reporting about the same. High 30's at idle. I am sure load will be low
    40's.

    I was worried for nothing. I will also get a little better fan than this
    cheapo I have on this great heatsink, and I am sure it will help as well.

    Thanks!

    --
    Don Burnette

    "When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
    way of the man that's doing it."
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    Might take a day or two for the AS to settle.
    It's not a heat problem until you start have softwate lockups etc.

    >My cpu temp as reported by corecenter, and in the bios, idles around 46-48C,
    >and gets into low 50's under load. System temp is 25C.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 20:22:01 -0600, Don Burnette wrote:


    > I tried installing MBM yesterday and kept getting an error message, I
    > figured maybe it did not work with this mb, will try again as I prefer it.
    >
    > Thanks,

    Check the temp readings in the BIOS to make sure that they agree with the
    temperatures reported by MBM. If there is a disagreement I'd trust the
    BIOS readings over the MBM ones.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    Don Burnette wrote:
    [...]
    > Just installed the latest version of core center, and my temp dropped
    > immediately by about 8c,

    This is why the absolute value given by motherboard temperature monitors are
    useless. The reading you get depends much more on things like BIOS revision,
    monitoring program, board variations, etc than actual CPU temperature.
    *Relative* readings are useful (keep everything the same but change fans,
    does it get hotter or colder?) but absolute readings don't mean much ("nyeh
    nyeh my setup runs cooler than yours nyeh nyeh" - yeah, right). If it's
    stable (Prime95) and not overvolted significantly, then it's not getting hot
    enough to be damaged so there's nothing to worry about.

    Of course, if you are doing serious overvolting and/or subzero cooling, then
    things change, but if you're that serious about things then you a) know what
    you're doing and b) know that there is an signficant chance that you will
    damage/kill your CPU and are not worried by this.

    [...]

    --
    Michael Brown
    www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz ---+--- My inbox is always open
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    Michael Brown wrote:
    > Don Burnette wrote:
    > [...]
    >> Just installed the latest version of core center, and my temp dropped
    >> immediately by about 8c,
    >
    > This is why the absolute value given by motherboard temperature
    > monitors are useless. The reading you get depends much more on things
    > like BIOS revision, monitoring program, board variations, etc than
    > actual CPU temperature. *Relative* readings are useful (keep
    > everything the same but change fans, does it get hotter or colder?)
    > but absolute readings don't mean much ("nyeh nyeh my setup runs
    > cooler than yours nyeh nyeh" - yeah, right). If it's stable (Prime95)
    > and not overvolted significantly, then it's not getting hot enough to
    > be damaged so there's nothing to worry about.
    > Of course, if you are doing serious overvolting and/or subzero
    > cooling, then things change, but if you're that serious about things
    > then you a) know what you're doing and b) know that there is an
    > signficant chance that you will damage/kill your CPU and are not
    > worried by this.
    > [...]


    I agree. I always overclock my systems, and had not started so yet on this
    one due to the temps being reported. However, I will say, I must have not
    had the heatsink mounted on good, or the arctic silver 3 not on properly, as
    I was experiencing overheating when I first assembled. This is about the 5th
    build for me, and first time I had this problem. I even changed to the
    thermal paste provided with the XP90 Thermalrite, yuk - stuff was like glue,
    bent some cpu pins when trying to remove the heatsink - the gluish effect
    probably because of the heat.

    Cleaned everything off, carefully applied a thin layer of arctic silver 3,
    and carefully mounted and matched the XP90 to the cpu. Much better!


    --
    Don Burnette

    "When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
    way of the man that's doing it."
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 21:01:21 -0600, "Don Burnette"
    <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote:

    >Michael Brown wrote:
    >> Don Burnette wrote:
    >> [...]
    >>> Just installed the latest version of core center, and my temp dropped
    >>> immediately by about 8c,
    >>
    >> This is why the absolute value given by motherboard temperature
    >> monitors are useless. The reading you get depends much more on things
    >> like BIOS revision, monitoring program, board variations, etc than
    >> actual CPU temperature. *Relative* readings are useful (keep
    >> everything the same but change fans, does it get hotter or colder?)
    >> but absolute readings don't mean much ("nyeh nyeh my setup runs
    >> cooler than yours nyeh nyeh" - yeah, right). If it's stable (Prime95)
    >> and not overvolted significantly, then it's not getting hot enough to
    >> be damaged so there's nothing to worry about.
    >> Of course, if you are doing serious overvolting and/or subzero
    >> cooling, then things change, but if you're that serious about things
    >> then you a) know what you're doing and b) know that there is an
    >> signficant chance that you will damage/kill your CPU and are not
    >> worried by this.
    >> [...]
    >
    >
    >I agree. I always overclock my systems, and had not started so yet on this
    >one due to the temps being reported. However, I will say, I must have not
    >had the heatsink mounted on good, or the arctic silver 3 not on properly, as
    >I was experiencing overheating when I first assembled. This is about the 5th
    >build for me, and first time I had this problem. I even changed to the
    >thermal paste provided with the XP90 Thermalrite, yuk - stuff was like glue,
    >bent some cpu pins when trying to remove the heatsink - the gluish effect
    >probably because of the heat.
    >
    >Cleaned everything off, carefully applied a thin layer of arctic silver 3,
    >and carefully mounted and matched the XP90 to the cpu. Much better!

    fwiw, I got the best temps by putting no more then about 3/4 of a BB's
    worth of paste right in the center of the CPU, then put the heatsink on
    and lock it down. The temps were higher when I spread the paste out over
    the whole top of the CPU. (2 - MSI /Clawhammer systems)

    Ed
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    "Ed" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:4rs001tgovoq4uu7m93sn240qmq30tipr7@4ax.com...

    > fwiw, I got the best temps by putting no more then about 3/4 of a BB's
    > worth of paste right in the center of the CPU, then put the heatsink on
    > and lock it down. The temps were higher when I spread the paste out over
    > the whole top of the CPU. (2 - MSI /Clawhammer systems)
    >
    > Ed

    How much higher, Ed?

    I can see that you could get a thinner layer of AS if you use the "3/4 of a
    bb" method. But how much difference did it make?

    Chip
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 09:19:58 -0500, General Schvantzkoph wrote:

    > Check the temp readings in the BIOS to make sure that they agree with the
    > temperatures reported by MBM. If there is a disagreement I'd trust the
    > BIOS readings over the MBM ones.

    You can't compare those as the bios puts a load on the cpu and should read
    higher than an idle OS reading. There's about 6C difference in mine and I
    can see it rise in the bios if I exit the os fast and go straight to bios
    readings.

    --
    Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
    http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.htm
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 11:28:41 -0000, "Chip" <anneonymouse@virgin.net>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Ed" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >news:4rs001tgovoq4uu7m93sn240qmq30tipr7@4ax.com...
    >
    >> fwiw, I got the best temps by putting no more then about 3/4 of a BB's
    >> worth of paste right in the center of the CPU, then put the heatsink on
    >> and lock it down. The temps were higher when I spread the paste out over
    >> the whole top of the CPU. (2 - MSI /Clawhammer systems)
    >>
    >> Ed
    >
    >How much higher, Ed?
    >
    >I can see that you could get a thinner layer of AS if you use the "3/4 of a
    >bb" method. But how much difference did it make?
    >
    >Chip
    >

    Well the one PC (3000+ clawhammer OC'd 200MHz) die temp dropped about
    10C running Prime95 max heat test, the other PC (claw 3400+ no OCing)
    dropped about 5C.

    One CPU got ripped right out of the socket when I went to re-do the
    paste (paste was spread over whole top), it's still working though. ;p

    Ed
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 15:27:55 GMT, Wes Newell
    <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:

    >On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 09:19:58 -0500, General Schvantzkoph wrote:
    >
    >> Check the temp readings in the BIOS to make sure that they agree with the
    >> temperatures reported by MBM. If there is a disagreement I'd trust the
    >> BIOS readings over the MBM ones.
    >
    >You can't compare those as the bios puts a load on the cpu and should read
    >higher than an idle OS reading. There's about 6C difference in mine and I
    >can see it rise in the bios if I exit the os fast and go straight to bios
    >readings.


    I did some PC wattage testing for BIOS, Windows, etc,etc... if anyone is
    interested in looking at.

    http://tinyurl.com/6ea3k

    Cheers,
    Ed
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    Ed wrote:
    > On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 11:28:41 -0000, "Chip" <anneonymouse@virgin.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Ed" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:4rs001tgovoq4uu7m93sn240qmq30tipr7@4ax.com...
    >>
    >>> fwiw, I got the best temps by putting no more then about 3/4 of a
    >>> BB's worth of paste right in the center of the CPU, then put the
    >>> heatsink on and lock it down. The temps were higher when I spread
    >>> the paste out over the whole top of the CPU. (2 - MSI /Clawhammer
    >>> systems)
    >>>
    >>> Ed
    >>
    >> How much higher, Ed?
    >>
    >> I can see that you could get a thinner layer of AS if you use the
    >> "3/4 of a bb" method. But how much difference did it make?
    >>
    >> Chip
    >>
    >
    > Well the one PC (3000+ clawhammer OC'd 200MHz) die temp dropped about
    > 10C running Prime95 max heat test, the other PC (claw 3400+ no OCing)
    > dropped about 5C.
    >
    > One CPU got ripped right out of the socket when I went to re-do the
    > paste (paste was spread over whole top), it's still working though. ;p
    >
    > Ed


    Funny you mention that. I first used the Arctic Silver3, and spread a layer
    across the chip's surface. When my temps were going through the roof, I
    cleaned it off and tried the paste. When that didn't work, I pulled my cpu
    out of the socket as well - stuff was like glue. It bent some pins on my 939
    processor, and had to carefully bend back to get the cpu to drop in the
    socket again. Luckily, seems to be fine. I used a thin smooth layer across
    the surface. I still think my temps could be better, I may try the bb trick
    to see if that is better.


    --
    Don Burnette

    "When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
    way of the man that's doing it."
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 17:33:57 -0600, "Don Burnette"
    <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote:

    >Ed wrote:
    >> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 11:28:41 -0000, "Chip" <anneonymouse@virgin.net>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "Ed" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:4rs001tgovoq4uu7m93sn240qmq30tipr7@4ax.com...
    >>>
    >>>> fwiw, I got the best temps by putting no more then about 3/4 of a
    >>>> BB's worth of paste right in the center of the CPU, then put the
    >>>> heatsink on and lock it down. The temps were higher when I spread
    >>>> the paste out over the whole top of the CPU. (2 - MSI /Clawhammer
    >>>> systems)
    >>>>
    >>>> Ed
    >>>
    >>> How much higher, Ed?
    >>>
    >>> I can see that you could get a thinner layer of AS if you use the
    >>> "3/4 of a bb" method. But how much difference did it make?
    >>>
    >>> Chip
    >>>
    >>
    >> Well the one PC (3000+ clawhammer OC'd 200MHz) die temp dropped about
    >> 10C running Prime95 max heat test, the other PC (claw 3400+ no OCing)
    >> dropped about 5C.
    >>
    >> One CPU got ripped right out of the socket when I went to re-do the
    >> paste (paste was spread over whole top), it's still working though. ;p
    >>
    >> Ed
    >
    >
    >Funny you mention that. I first used the Arctic Silver3, and spread a layer
    >across the chip's surface. When my temps were going through the roof, I
    >cleaned it off and tried the paste. When that didn't work, I pulled my cpu
    >out of the socket as well - stuff was like glue. It bent some pins on my 939
    >processor, and had to carefully bend back to get the cpu to drop in the
    >socket again. Luckily, seems to be fine. I used a thin smooth layer across
    >the surface. I still think my temps could be better, I may try the bb trick
    >to see if that is better.

    Ya same here... was like glue! I could tell the heatsink wasn't coming
    off easy enough, so as a last resort I just lifted the HS straight up
    off the board and the CPU was stuck to the bottom of it, didn't bend any
    pins, I think maybe AMD could of made the whole design better, but in
    AMD's defense I did take a AMD retail HS off one system after 3 months
    and it came right off no problem, paste looked sort of like AS3 to me.

    Good luck with the temps, but if it doesn't lock up or crash under heavy
    loads I wouldn't worry about it, all of my AMDs since the K5 have been
    used and abused, they all retired before they ever burned up. ;p

    Ed
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    With the "new" Core Center do a warm reboot and your CPU temps will
    probably be lower yet.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    s_roger@comcast.net wrote:

    > With the "new" Core Center do a warm reboot and your CPU temps will
    > probably be lower yet.
    >

    I'm not sure your suggestion is logical!

    My temp reads around 27 C or 28 C whether I cold boot in the morning or
    I warm boot sometime during the day. And I have the latest version of
    CoreCenter!
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    Dee wrote:
    > s_roger@comcast.net wrote:
    >
    >> With the "new" Core Center do a warm reboot and your CPU temps will
    >> probably be lower yet.
    >>
    >
    > I'm not sure your suggestion is logical!
    >
    > My temp reads around 27 C or 28 C whether I cold boot in the morning
    > or I warm boot sometime during the day. And I have the latest
    > version of CoreCenter!


    %$@#, heck, by the time my system boots up and windows is completely
    loaded, mine cpu temp is already around 40c.

    This Thermalrite XP90 is a beautiful heatsink, and somewhat expensive ..
    just feel like my temps should be lower.

    --
    Don Burnette

    "When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
    way of the man that's doing it."
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    more info here: http://msihq.designlab.info/thread.php?threadid=66664
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    "Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:LpydnUj1U5jzQ5_fRVn-2w@giganews.com...
    > Dee wrote:
    >> s_roger@comcast.net wrote:
    >>
    >>> With the "new" Core Center do a warm reboot and your CPU temps will
    >>> probably be lower yet.
    >>>
    >>
    >> I'm not sure your suggestion is logical!
    >>
    >> My temp reads around 27 C or 28 C whether I cold boot in the morning
    >> or I warm boot sometime during the day. And I have the latest
    >> version of CoreCenter!
    >
    >
    > %$@#, heck, by the time my system boots up and windows is completely
    > loaded, mine cpu temp is already around 40c.

    Don't worry about it. There's no way his 27C is real. 40C is typical for
    Winchester CPU's in your motherboard.

    Chip
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    Don Burnette wrote:
    > Dee wrote:
    [...]
    >> My temp reads around 27 C or 28 C whether I cold boot in the morning
    >> or I warm boot sometime during the day. And I have the latest
    >> version of CoreCenter!
    >
    >
    > %$@#, heck, by the time my system boots up and windows is completely
    > loaded, mine cpu temp is already around 40c.

    See my post earlier in this thread. Him @27 vs you @40 means nothing. There
    is even a reasonable chance that your CPU is actually running cooler than
    his.

    [...]

    --
    Michael Brown
    www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz ---+--- My inbox is always open
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    Chip wrote:
    > "Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:LpydnUj1U5jzQ5_fRVn-2w@giganews.com...
    >> Dee wrote:
    >>> s_roger@comcast.net wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> With the "new" Core Center do a warm reboot and your CPU temps will
    >>>> probably be lower yet.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I'm not sure your suggestion is logical!
    >>>
    >>> My temp reads around 27 C or 28 C whether I cold boot in the morning
    >>> or I warm boot sometime during the day. And I have the latest
    >>> version of CoreCenter!
    >>
    >>
    >> %$@#, heck, by the time my system boots up and windows is completely
    >> loaded, mine cpu temp is already around 40c.
    >
    > Don't worry about it. There's no way his 27C is real. 40C is
    > typical for Winchester CPU's in your motherboard.
    >
    > Chip


    Thanks.

    Another guy posted in another forum, with the mb I have now, the temp is
    read differently than from what I had before. I feel better about it now.

    --
    Don Burnette

    "When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
    way of the man that's doing it."
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    "Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote in message
    news:420341d7$1@clarion.carno.net.au...
    > Don Burnette wrote:
    >> Dee wrote:
    > [...]
    >>> My temp reads around 27 C or 28 C whether I cold boot in the morning
    >>> or I warm boot sometime during the day. And I have the latest
    >>> version of CoreCenter!
    >>
    >>
    >> %$@#, heck, by the time my system boots up and windows is completely
    >> loaded, mine cpu temp is already around 40c.
    >
    > See my post earlier in this thread. Him @27 vs you @40 means nothing.
    > There is even a reasonable chance that your CPU is actually running cooler
    > than his.

    Maybe you would like to check out this link:-
    http://www.silentpcreview.com/article191-page1.html

    Maybe using MBM/MBProbe, they both have adjustment, you can make those temps
    meaningful!

    Can't hurt to try. ;-)

    Dave
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 14:49:56 -0600, "Don Burnette"
    <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote:
    >
    >I will also add, that not only that, with core center open, it registered my
    >fsb fluctuating significantly. I have it set at 205, and it would fluctuate
    >up to 220-225 when under load. Very strange.

    Isn't that what Dynamic Overclocking in the BIOS does, changes the FSB
    on the fly? You have it on?
  24. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    Ed wrote:
    > On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 14:49:56 -0600, "Don Burnette"
    > <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote:
    >>
    >> I will also add, that not only that, with core center open, it
    >> registered my fsb fluctuating significantly. I have it set at 205,
    >> and it would fluctuate up to 220-225 when under load. Very strange.
    >
    > Isn't that what Dynamic Overclocking in the BIOS does, changes the FSB
    > on the fly? You have it on?


    No, it was off. I had it on manual, with fsb at 205.

    I went ahead and took off the heatsink, and cleaned it along with the cpu
    surface well.
    I applied a very small bead of arctic silver 3 to the cpu, and spread it
    very thin. I then did a tiny thin layer on the heatsink surface, and
    remounted. I then loaded optimized defaults in the mb bios.

    So far, my cpu temp is staying right at 40c, just ran 3dmark03 and cpu temp
    only got to 41c. I will stress test it later with prime95. Looking much
    better though, before it was climbing to 50c and higher shortly after
    booting into windows with no load.

    I am a little suprised my 3d mark 03 score was not better, getting around
    6900, if I recall that was close to what I was getting with my Nforce2 XP
    2800+ system. I guess the 9800 Pro would be the bottleneck now.

    Keeping fingers crossed temps don't start to climb again. Sure am glad it
    shuts itself down when it gets too hot :).

    Thanks,


    --
    Don Burnette

    "When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
    way of the man that's doing it."
  25. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    Don Burnette wrote:

    > I will also add, that not only that, with core center open, it registered my
    > fsb fluctuating significantly. I have it set at 205, and it would fluctuate
    > up to 220-225 when under load. Very strange.
    >

    CoreCenter neither monitors nor display you FSB speed. It monitors and
    displays your HT speed!
  26. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    Dee wrote:
    > Don Burnette wrote:
    >
    >> I will also add, that not only that, with core center open, it
    >> registered my fsb fluctuating significantly. I have it set at 205,
    >> and it would fluctuate up to 220-225 when under load. Very strange.
    >>
    >
    > CoreCenter neither monitors nor display you FSB speed. It monitors
    > and displays your HT speed!


    What exactly is HT speed? I see in the bios it can be set between 1-5.
    With optimized defaults, it is at 5 on my system.

    Core Center was showing me both fsb and resulting clock speed, when I click
    on the core center name.


    --
    Don Burnette

    "When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
    way of the man that's doing it."
  27. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    Don Burnette wrote:

    > I will also add, that not only that, with core center open, it registered my
    > fsb fluctuating significantly. I have it set at 205, and it would fluctuate
    > up to 220-225 when under load. Very strange.
    >

    CoreCenter neither monitors nor displays your FSB speed. It monitors
    and displays your HT speed! FSB and HT are 2 different animals!
  28. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    Don Burnette wrote:

    > Dee wrote:
    >
    >>Don Burnette wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>I will also add, that not only that, with core center open, it
    >>>registered my fsb fluctuating significantly. I have it set at 205,
    >>>and it would fluctuate up to 220-225 when under load. Very strange.
    >>>
    >>
    >>CoreCenter neither monitors nor display you FSB speed. It monitors
    >>and displays your HT speed!
    >
    >
    >
    > What exactly is HT speed? I see in the bios it can be set between 1-5.
    > With optimized defaults, it is at 5 on my system.
    >
    > Core Center was showing me both fsb and resulting clock speed, when I click
    > on the core center name.
    >
    >
    >

    HT (HyperTransport) is the memory link between an AMD CPU with an
    integrated memory controller and the memory. These systems no longer
    have a FSB because the HT replaced the FSB. Therefore, what you see in
    CoreCenter is the HT speed with a multiplier and the resulting CPU speed.

    You may thing this is being picky, but it's really not! If you want to
    learn more, go to the AMD site and read the Technical documentation that
    explains everything in detail.
  29. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    Dee wrote:
    > Don Burnette wrote:
    >
    >> Dee wrote:
    >>
    >>> Don Burnette wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> I will also add, that not only that, with core center open, it
    >>>> registered my fsb fluctuating significantly. I have it set at 205,
    >>>> and it would fluctuate up to 220-225 when under load. Very strange.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> CoreCenter neither monitors nor display you FSB speed. It monitors
    >>> and displays your HT speed!
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> What exactly is HT speed? I see in the bios it can be set between
    >> 1-5. With optimized defaults, it is at 5 on my system.
    >>
    >> Core Center was showing me both fsb and resulting clock speed, when
    >> I click on the core center name.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    > HT (HyperTransport) is the memory link between an AMD CPU with an
    > integrated memory controller and the memory. These systems no longer
    > have a FSB because the HT replaced the FSB. Therefore, what you see
    > in CoreCenter is the HT speed with a multiplier and the resulting CPU
    > speed.
    > You may thing this is being picky, but it's really not! If you want
    > to learn more, go to the AMD site and read the Technical
    > documentation that explains everything in detail.


    Interesting, thanks.

    So when I changed the bus in the bios say from 200 to 210, this is correct
    to overclock it right?

    Also, can you tell me what settings in the bios for HT 1 through 5
    represent?


    Thanks,

    --
    Don Burnette

    "When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
    way of the man that's doing it."
  30. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    Don Burnette wrote:

    > Interesting, thanks.
    >
    > So when I changed the bus in the bios say from 200 to 210, this is correct
    > to overclock it right?
    >
    > Also, can you tell me what settings in the bios for HT 1 through 5
    > represent?
    >
    >
    > Thanks,
    >

    I can't answer that one. My BIOS doesn't have that option, so I would
    be guessing at the best.
  31. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    Dee wrote:
    > Don Burnette wrote:
    >
    >> Interesting, thanks.
    >>
    >> So when I changed the bus in the bios say from 200 to 210, this is
    >> correct to overclock it right?
    >>
    >> Also, can you tell me what settings in the bios for HT 1 through 5
    >> represent?
    >>
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >>
    >
    > I can't answer that one. My BIOS doesn't have that option, so I would
    > be guessing at the best.


    Ok, thanks.

    I think I may have solved my overheating problem with the last refit of the
    heatsink.

    I have been running a very cpu intensive application ( video decoding) for
    the last 20 minutes, with 100% cpu useage. Highest the core has got is 47c.

    Huge difference over what it was doing. I guess with this XP 90 heatsink on
    this winchester chip, you gotta get it just right.

    --
    Don Burnette

    "When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
    way of the man that's doing it."
  32. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    Dee wrote:
    > Don Burnette wrote:
    >> Dee wrote:
    >>> Don Burnette wrote:
    >>>> I will also add, that not only that, with core center open, it
    >>>> registered my fsb fluctuating significantly. I have it set at 205,
    >>>> and it would fluctuate up to 220-225 when under load. Very strange.
    >>>
    >>> CoreCenter neither monitors nor display you FSB speed. It monitors
    >>> and displays your HT speed!
    >>
    >> What exactly is HT speed? I see in the bios it can be set between
    >> 1-5. With optimized defaults, it is at 5 on my system.
    >>
    >> Core Center was showing me both fsb and resulting clock speed, when
    >> I click on the core center name.
    >
    > HT (HyperTransport) is the memory link between an AMD CPU with an
    > integrated memory controller and the memory.

    Umm, no. The HT link is between the AMD CPU and the southbridge. Memory
    comes off the CPU itself and has nothing to do with hypertransport. If
    you're going to be picky, make sure you're right :)

    Anyhow, the 1..5 settings are the HT multiplier settings. Perhaps this needs
    a little explaining.

    Everything in an A64 system is based off the system clock (sometimes also
    incorrectly called the hypertransport clock). This system clock value is
    multiplied by the southbridge and CPU to get the hypertransport clock. The
    usual HT speed is 200x4=800MHz for the 130nm chips, and 200x5 for the 90nm
    chips (IIRC). You generally don't want to go too much above the chipset's
    rated HT speed, so when you start ramping up the system clock you'll need to
    drop the HT multiplier at some point to compensate.

    The next thing is the CPU speed. This is simply the system clock multiplied
    by the CPU multiplier (anywhere between 4x and 25x in half-integer steps).
    Fairly self explanatory. The final clock is the memory clock. Because the
    memory controller is on the core, this is done by dividing the CPU clock by
    some INTEGER value. This means your RAM will run slightly below what you
    would expect in some cases, as there is no way to get 166MHz from a 200MHz
    system clock and a 9 multiplier for example (it will run at 200 * 9 / 11 =
    163.6MHz).

    Finally, about the fluctuating CoreCenter speeds ... I'm not sure exactly
    how an A64's thermal-throttle works (or even if it has one), but if it works
    through PowerNow then I can explain why your FSB jumps around during
    high-heat times:

    First of all, you cannot directly detect the system clock speed. All you can
    do is measure the current CPU speed, get the multiplier, and then divide to
    get the system clock speed. Windows only detects the CPU speed on startup,
    and most CPUID programs (including, I suspect, CoreCenter) are poorly
    written and effectively just ask Windows "how fast is this CPU?". If there
    is a PowerNow transition Windows will continue to report the same CPU speed,
    and since the multiplier has dropped, the system clock speed will increase.
    With 205x11, it would jump to 225MHz if it drops down to 10x, 250MHz if it
    drops down to 9x, and so on. Of course, since thermal throttling is far
    faster than CoreCenter measurements are taken, the value is averaged
    resulting in a spread of values. This is al assuming that throttling exists
    and works through PowerNow, something which I have no idea if it is or not
    :)

    [...]

    --
    Michael Brown
    www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
  33. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    Michael Brown wrote:
    > Dee wrote:
    >> Don Burnette wrote:
    >>> Dee wrote:
    >>>> Don Burnette wrote:
    >>>>> I will also add, that not only that, with core center open, it
    >>>>> registered my fsb fluctuating significantly. I have it set at 205,
    >>>>> and it would fluctuate up to 220-225 when under load. Very
    >>>>> strange.
    >>>>
    >>>> CoreCenter neither monitors nor display you FSB speed. It monitors
    >>>> and displays your HT speed!
    >>>
    >>> What exactly is HT speed? I see in the bios it can be set between
    >>> 1-5. With optimized defaults, it is at 5 on my system.
    >>>
    >>> Core Center was showing me both fsb and resulting clock speed, when
    >>> I click on the core center name.
    >>
    >> HT (HyperTransport) is the memory link between an AMD CPU with an
    >> integrated memory controller and the memory.
    >
    > Umm, no. The HT link is between the AMD CPU and the southbridge.
    > Memory comes off the CPU itself and has nothing to do with
    > hypertransport. If you're going to be picky, make sure you're right :)
    >
    > Anyhow, the 1..5 settings are the HT multiplier settings. Perhaps
    > this needs a little explaining.
    >
    > Everything in an A64 system is based off the system clock (sometimes
    > also incorrectly called the hypertransport clock). This system clock
    > value is multiplied by the southbridge and CPU to get the
    > hypertransport clock. The usual HT speed is 200x4=800MHz for the
    > 130nm chips, and 200x5 for the 90nm chips (IIRC). You generally don't
    > want to go too much above the chipset's rated HT speed, so when you
    > start ramping up the system clock you'll need to drop the HT
    > multiplier at some point to compensate.
    >
    > The next thing is the CPU speed. This is simply the system clock
    > multiplied by the CPU multiplier (anywhere between 4x and 25x in
    > half-integer steps). Fairly self explanatory. The final clock is the
    > memory clock. Because the memory controller is on the core, this is
    > done by dividing the CPU clock by some INTEGER value. This means your
    > RAM will run slightly below what you would expect in some cases, as
    > there is no way to get 166MHz from a 200MHz system clock and a 9
    > multiplier for example (it will run at 200 * 9 / 11 = 163.6MHz).
    >
    > Finally, about the fluctuating CoreCenter speeds ... I'm not sure
    > exactly how an A64's thermal-throttle works (or even if it has one),
    > but if it works through PowerNow then I can explain why your FSB
    > jumps around during high-heat times:
    >
    > First of all, you cannot directly detect the system clock speed. All
    > you can do is measure the current CPU speed, get the multiplier, and
    > then divide to get the system clock speed. Windows only detects the
    > CPU speed on startup, and most CPUID programs (including, I suspect,
    > CoreCenter) are poorly written and effectively just ask Windows "how
    > fast is this CPU?". If there is a PowerNow transition Windows will
    > continue to report the same CPU speed, and since the multiplier has
    > dropped, the system clock speed will increase. With 205x11, it would
    > jump to 225MHz if it drops down to 10x, 250MHz if it drops down to
    > 9x, and so on. Of course, since thermal throttling is far faster than
    > CoreCenter measurements are taken, the value is averaged resulting in
    > a spread of values. This is al assuming that throttling exists and
    > works through PowerNow, something which I have no idea if it is or
    > not :)
    >
    > [...]


    Great explanation and information.
    Very helpful, helps me a bunch.

    Thanks Michael,


    --
    Don Burnette

    "When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
    way of the man that's doing it."
  34. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    Michael Brown wrote:

    >>HT (HyperTransport) is the memory link between an AMD CPU with an
    >>integrated memory controller and the memory.
    >
    >
    > Umm, no. The HT link is between the AMD CPU and the southbridge. Memory
    > comes off the CPU itself and has nothing to do with hypertransport. If
    > you're going to be picky, make sure you're right :)
    >

    Okay, so I blew it! Do I get forty lashes with a wet noodle?

    I realized my mistake later while thinking about it, but couldn't get
    back to the computer until now.

    I apologize for the error of my ways!
  35. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    Wes Newell wrote:
    > On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 09:33:39 -0500, Dee wrote:
    >
    >> Michael Brown wrote:
    >>
    >>>> HT (HyperTransport) is the memory link between an AMD CPU with an
    >>>> integrated memory controller and the memory.
    >>>
    >>> Umm, no. The HT link is between the AMD CPU and the southbridge.
    >>> Memory comes off the CPU itself and has nothing to do with
    >>> hypertransport. If you're going to be picky, make sure you're right
    >>> :)
    >>>
    >> Okay, so I blew it! Do I get forty lashes with a wet noodle?
    >>
    > Don't worry about it, so did Michael. Got his north and south
    > confused. The HT connects between the CPU and northbridge.

    The northbridge on an K8 is on the CPU, and the southbridge is the bit that
    is left outside the CPU. If you want to get *really* picky about it, the HT
    link is between on (on-die) northbridge and the off-die components (such as
    southbridges or other CPU's northbridges). However, the whole
    northbridge/southbridge thing has become fairly debatable. For example, put
    "northbridge definition" into google and you'll get "The part of a chipset
    in a PC that controls communications among system memory, the processor,
    external cache, and the AGP bus." from the first hit. Clearly, neither the
    on-die thing or the off-die thing(s) satisfy this definition.

    The current two-chip chipsets for the A64 pretty much just act as a proxy
    between the HT bus and whatever interconnect the "standard" southbridge from
    the chipset manufacturer uses, along with controlling the AGP bus. Sort of a
    "equitorial-bridge" that sits somewhere between the northbridge and the
    southbridge :)

    [...]

    --
    Michael Brown
    www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
  36. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 12:03:22 +1300, Michael Brown wrote:

    > Wes Newell wrote:
    >> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 09:33:39 -0500, Dee wrote:
    >>
    >>> Michael Brown wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> HT (HyperTransport) is the memory link between an AMD CPU with an
    >>>>> integrated memory controller and the memory.
    >>>>
    >>>> Umm, no. The HT link is between the AMD CPU and the southbridge.
    >>>> Memory comes off the CPU itself and has nothing to do with
    >>>> hypertransport. If you're going to be picky, make sure you're right
    >>>> :)
    >>>>
    >>> Okay, so I blew it! Do I get forty lashes with a wet noodle?
    >>>
    >> Don't worry about it, so did Michael. Got his north and south confused.
    >> The HT connects between the CPU and northbridge.
    >
    > The northbridge on an K8 is on the CPU, and the southbridge is the bit
    > that is left outside the CPU. If you want to get *really* picky about it,

    No it's not. The HT is nothing more than a FSB called by a different
    name and using a different data transfer method.

    > the HT link is between on (on-die) northbridge and the off-die

    There is no on die northbrige. In the case of my MB, the northbridge is
    the SIS 755 chipset and the MB has a SIS963L southbridge. I think you're
    losing it.:-)

    > components (such as southbridges or other CPU's northbridges). However,
    > the whole northbridge/southbridge thing has become fairly debatable. For
    > example, put "northbridge definition" into google and you'll get "The
    > part of a chipset in a PC that controls communications among system
    > memory, the processor, external cache, and the AGP bus." from the first
    > hit. Clearly, neither the on-die thing or the off-die thing(s) satisfy
    > this definition.
    >
    Here's what i found;

    In Northbridge/Southbridge chipset architecture designs, the Northbridge
    is the chip or chips that connect a CPU to memory, the PCI bus, Level 2
    cache and AGP activities. The Northbridge chips communicate with the CPU
    through the FSB.

    Now, with the exception of memory, which now has it's on bus straight to
    the CPU, the is correct.


    > The current two-chip chipsets for the A64 pretty much just act as a
    > proxy between the HT bus and whatever interconnect the "standard"
    > southbridge from the chipset manufacturer uses, along with controlling
    > the AGP bus. Sort of a "equitorial-bridge" that sits somewhere between
    > the northbridge and the southbridge :)
    >
    Read what you just said, and then tell me how there can be another bus in
    between the northbridge and southbridge if the northbridge was in the CPU,
    and the HT is the only thing that connects to the chipset. You been
    smoking them funny cigarettes again?:-)

    Here's a simple example of the HT, northbrige, and southbridge. And note
    what SIS calls it. And they make it.

    SiS755
    ( North Bridge Chipset )
    SiS Chipset Supports AGP8X for AMD Athlon 64 Platform

    http://www.sis.com/products/chipsets/oa/athlon64/755.htm

    SIS calls their link between the north adn south Multitol. VIA, something
    else and others yet something else. It's still a seperate bus in any case.

    --
    Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
    http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.htm
  37. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    Wes Newell wrote:
    [...]

    I had a point-by-point reply, but I decided against posting it since I can
    see this turning into a bit of a flamewar.

    In any case, I recommend you read the AMD tech docs, as opposed to marketing
    material by chipset manufacturers. If you look at AMD tech docs, you'll see
    that the northbridge consists of the system request queue (SRQ) which sits
    between the two dies (one left unconnected :) ), the APIC, and the crossbar.
    The crossbar sits between the memory controller, the 3 HT links, and the
    SRQ.

    In a traditional (dual-CPU capable, PTP busses) system, this is more or less
    a standard northbridge that you would have seen if the chipset ran the AGP
    bus off the southbridge (can't remember the ones that did, but I remember
    that performance wasn't too hot), or didn't support AGP at all.

    Calling a piece of glue logic that essentially just converts between HT and
    VLink a northbridge, when there's a much more northbridge-like construct
    inside the CPU, isn't the most obvious decision IMO. Sorta similar to if a
    K7 Via chipset was made up of three chips: one that converted between EV6
    and VLink, one that did the normal northbridge duties (AGP/DRAM/PTP links if
    SMP), and one that did the normal southbridge duties (PCI, integrated
    bits'n'bobs, etc). Would the interconnect glue be the northbridge?

    I think with the K8, or any HT-based system, the terms northbridge and (and
    possibly southbridge as well) can't really be used. You just have a
    daisy-chained series of devices. For example, the ALi "northbridge" is
    nothing more than an hypertransport tunnel with an AGP interface (in fact
    it's just a rebadged AMD 8151, which is called a "Hypertransport AGP tunnel"
    by AMD). The SiS and Via "nortbridges" are pretty much the same thing
    feature-wise, though also feature a interconnect translater (to VLink to
    Mutiol).

    Northbridge, IMO, should be reserved for systems that have a definate
    northbridge-like chip. If northbridge functionality is split up over
    multiplie bits of the system, then either don't talk about northbridges at
    all (preferable), or call the most northbridge-like bit the northbridge.

    --
    Michael Brown
    www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
  38. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:23:23 +1300, Michael Brown wrote:

    > I think with the K8, or any HT-based system, the terms northbridge and
    > (and possibly southbridge as well) can't really be used. You just have a
    > daisy-chained series of devices. For example, the ALi "northbridge" is
    > nothing more than an hypertransport tunnel with an AGP interface (in fact
    > it's just a rebadged AMD 8151, which is called a "Hypertransport AGP
    > tunnel" by AMD). The SiS and Via "nortbridges" are pretty much the same
    > thing feature-wise, though also feature a interconnect translater (to
    > VLink to Mutiol).
    >
    There's only one difference between the K8 and previous x86 cpu's
    conserning the northbridge, and that's that the memory controller has been
    moved off the northbridge and onto the cpu. This along with the cpu's
    extra HT links is what enhances performance in both single and multicore
    systems. All other functions of the standard north/south bridge system are
    still there. They still use the same achitecture, etc. It's just they have
    a faster system bus because the system bus is now an HT link bus. So what
    is the system bus? It's just another name for FSB and it does the same
    thing as the FSB in previous K6, K7, etc cpu's except for the memory
    controllers. It controls IO to all other external devices through the
    north/south bridge, with the exception of memory. This includes AGP, PCI,
    PCI-E, mouse/keyboard, and whatever else the chipset manufacturer wants to
    pack into it, generally called the feature set. The chipset manufactures
    have not changed the name of these devices to confuse people. And that
    keeps it simple, and I agree. OTOH, many people now think the K8 doesn't
    have a FSB when in fact the name FSB name has just been dropped in favor
    of calling it just the system bus, which is fine with me as it was also
    called this in the K7 series if you get right down to it. So in the K7 the
    cpu, connected to all other devices through the FSB to the northbridge and
    then the southbridge (including system ram). The K8 does the exact same
    thing with these exceptions. The memory and only the memory connects
    direct to the cpu instead of the northbridge. That they now call the FSB
    only the system bus is fine. Even calling it the HT bus/link is fine with
    me too as long as everyone realizes that there can be more than one HT
    link in a system, serving totally different functions. System bus is much
    more specific. And since the chipset manufacturers decided not to change
    what they call the chipset (northbridge/southbridge) who am I to argue
    with them. It only makes sense to me. The fact that the system bus is now
    serial instead of parelell really has doesn't matter to me. It's still the
    system bus only much faster using a different architechture.

    While we may never agree on this terminology it's what it is, and I hope
    others lurking will learn something from this thread.

    --
    Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
    http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.htm
  39. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    > SiS755
    > ( North Bridge Chipset )
    > SiS Chipset Supports AGP8X for AMD Athlon 64 Platform
    >
    > http://www.sis.com/products/chipsets/oa/athlon64/755.htm
    >
    > SIS calls their link between the north adn south Multitol. VIA, something
    > else and others yet something else. It's still a seperate bus in any case.


    Interesting. Wes, has your computer been complaining to you lately?
    According to SIS, they have Hypertransport *complaint* bus driver
    technology. lol

    DougH
Ask a new question

Read More

AMD Overclocking